Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 19, 2012 3:30am-4:00am PST

3:30 am
just to let you know we have been in business since 2000 and have a great reputation in our present neighborhood, inner richmond. what we plan on doing to the property is converting the existing church into a dare care center /preschool. this will accommodate up to 60 children and the ages of the children will be up to five years. the hours of operations will be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. monday through friday only, not week ends. why we plan on operating the business on this property? the primary reasons for operating a day care at this property are the need for larger space and area. we have an extensive waiting list and the need for preschools in the
3:31 am
area. presently maggie's family child care located in the richmond district as i stated is limited to large capacity license thus unable to expand seeking parents seeking quality child care with a preschool environment accompanied with a bilingual program that we're adding to it, mandarin specifically and the property at 1984 great highway will meet this area need. the waiting list is extremely long and i know it sounds ridiculous but it's up to two years because of the high demand and mostly it's the bilingual program they're seeking. at this time there are many parents introducing their children to
3:32 am
programs with mandarin with english and it's determined through interviews and emails and networking through other child care providers. the uses desirable and provide a vital resource for the residents of the neighborhood and those parents that need someone to maintain custody of their children while they are working . we will live here at the child care center general license requirements of the state. according to our research provided by social services and community care licensing there are only 13 preschools in this zip code and no preschools from the great highway to 42nd
3:33 am
avenue. in addition according to the recent census taken 71% are considered working parents which means this is a percentage requiring day care. what our concerns relating to the neighbors and how will we address these concerns? the primary concerns we believe the neighbors should have addressed for operating on our day care preschool are alterations to the existing structure, parking, and noise. first of all in recognizing the structure as a historical building landmark we have no intention of altering any building or structure under the local government as such a structure, so we agree there is going to be no alterations or modifications to the exterior of the building. again we would never consider changing the
3:34 am
exterior of a historical landmark. parking is a valuable commodity but our primary concern is the safety of infants, so we plan on doing a white zone -- is this timer on -- >> you have about 20 seconds probably. >> oh geez -- okay. i haven't gotten to the meat of my potatoes. if you want you can leave a written copy for us. >> yeah. there is critical stuff in here. oh good. okay. i got gonged. i am sorry. >> you it leave it on the rail there. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> and we might have questions for you so stick around. >> opening it up for public comment. actually what am i doing? i have cards here.
3:35 am
vince cisneros it's. >> that was vince. >> okay. george tana, gene persura, tony qang, tracy white. >> hello ladies and gentlemen of the commission. my name is george sang. i used to work as a traffic engineer and a building inspector for the city and county of san francisco and i also was the building commissioner at and i know this will create jobs for people in san francisco and living environment in san francisco which we all need, and i know there is a traffic concern but if you look at what it was before the church -- there was a lot of parking but this is a day care and i know
3:36 am
maggie clinton said she was a parent with my wife teaching at garfield 34 yearsling welso i know she is very qualified and i hope you approve this project and this will keep san francisco family friendly. thank you very much. >> next speaker. i called her name. >> hello. i am jean besure and lived on balboa for 57 years and maggie has her day care directly across the street from me and i never had a problem with anyone blocking my drive way or the neighbors for that matter and balboa is a busy street so really i can't imagine that down on 48th or great highway where
3:37 am
there is only houses on the east side of the street and none on the west it would appear to me there is plenty of parking there and vince and maggie are really very responsible people and respectful of their neighbors so that's just what i wanted to tell you. thank you. >> my name is tony and i do not report my department but i work for [inaudible] licensing and a neighbor in the area of 48th avenue. maggie has impeccable history. she's perfect and i am not speaking again on behalf of the department, just as a concerned neighbor, because i also need child care, and the waiting list is about two years. the closest one is a co-op and requires parent participation so that's out of the question
3:38 am
also on parking -- i don't see problems in the morning time. i see problems in the evening time but it's closed at the time and probably would be good for the neighborhood and they're closed on the weekends and everyone can enjoy the weekends and finally like in the city where there is good schooling involved usually property values actually go up so i think me as a owner, landowner -- or i mean a property ownership and neighbor in the area i think it's going to be a good benefit to the community, and that's it. thank s. >> hello. i am tracy wright. i will read my notes. i have known maggie for the past sixer yoos -- i may cry. i get
3:39 am
emotional because i have known her so long. i have three children and i currently have a three year old at growing tree. when i began my research for day care it was so difficult to find a day care that i felt comfortable leaving my child and i found growing tree and maggie was great and of course i was looking for as a provider for my child and what set it apart from the others that i researched and organized and the cleanliness of the facility and the only provider to give me a handbook details a typical day and a former teacher had knowledge of age appropriate cognitive behavior and provide age appropriate activities and play. my two oldest have left growing
3:40 am
tree and they were well prepared academically and socially. it was a very easy transition to a larger facility. they have learned so much at maggies. i love that maggie shared her love of music and ballay. she introduced piano and dance to my children which is something that not every school gets to experience and my oldest is currently enrolled in piano lessons. last but not least i love that my children were exposed to mandarin and i wish i would have exposed to that and i know it will help them in the future learning of another language. overall i am pleased and grateful to maggie and the staff for all of their nurturing and with growing tree opening a new larger facility it would be a huge asset to the neighborhood and the families will be fortunate to have their
3:41 am
children attend such a fabulous center. thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? okay. seeing none commissioner borden. >> move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i would like to have staff like a look at the plans. there's ada access that they're going to propose at the ground level. there is apparently a step there now they're going to convert into some short ramp system. i don't particularly have a problem with that, but that leads into the first floor. there is no access up to the second level. that a ada issue or do you know? >> with regards to the front entrance. >> the front entrance is a
3:42 am
stairway that leads to the second floor which is the main floor where the day care is mainly going to take place. in any case there is no ada access to that floor and no elevate to there. >> that's correct. and the rear and the first and second floor. >> i am not greans the project. i want to say when there is no historic changes and there is potential historic resource and anyway to accommodate ada access is taken care of in conformity to the secretary's standards. i don't want this thing to go to eir or anything like that, so if it can be taken care of internally that would be really great. it might add a lot of costs because we're talking
3:43 am
about elevators. >> that was good for you to point out. i will communicate that to the contractor and maybe the other alternative, and i know -- people don't like this system, but there might be consideration to an alternative access through the back, and in some ways the knowledge doesn't have a front and back. >> >> it's front two streets anyway. >> they will go over review and assess ada compliance. there maybe measures they can use to help out and dealt with at that step. there are external changes that are needed they are routed back to us for review and preservation specialist can look at that but it's a good point to highlight. >> thank you. >> there's a motion and a second commissioners to approve with conditions. commissioner
3:44 am
antonini. >> i. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> so moved. >> commissioners. >> i am subject to close the hearing and standard to conscience. >> commissioners that will place you under item 16 amendments to the planning code add a new section and cap on number of efficiency dwelling units that can be constructed and two amending section and adding section to impose open space and common space requirements on efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage. commissioner wu. >> just wanted to let the public know for the sake of
3:45 am
transparency that i do work for trances bay community staff development center and staff may have been involved and i haven't been involved in those conversations and i serve as a commissioner as a individual. >> good afternoon. i am from the planning staff. the proposed ordinance before you has three components and first amend and add a cap on the number of efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage and approved and adding a reporting requirement. second require the open space for the micro units be shared open space rather than private open space and third it would require common interior space provided for the units . the cap as well as the open space requirements is not applicable to student housing projects and this is before the commission
3:46 am
so that you may recommend adoption, rejection or adoption with mod ifdz to the board of supervisors. the department is recommending disapproval of the proposed ordinance but have modifications for you and the board of supervisors to consider if it is adopted so i would first like to outline the proposed change and move on to the department's recommendation. the planning code doesn't define efficiency dwelling units. so-called efficiency dwelling units are defined only in the san francisco building code based on the set of criteria that include providing living area with minimum size of 220 square feet, individual cooking facilities and a separate bathroom and clozet. legislation that is currently pending at the board of supervisors would amend the definition of efficiency dwelling units and reduce the size -- the allowable size of efficiency dwelling units to
3:47 am
have living units as small as 150 square feet as long as the total size including the bathrooms and closets was no smaller than 220 square feet. the proposed ordinance today will add a new definition to the planning code and efficiency dwelling units for living room that is smaller than 220 square feet. this definition in the planning code applies to market rate units and not affordable housing or student housing and approved at 375 units and capd and after the approval of 325 units the department submit a report to the board of supervisors that would assist the board in its consideration of as to whether more reduced efficiency dwelling units should be allowed. the proposed ordinance would also amend section 135 to require whenever
3:48 am
possible market rate micro units provide common usable open space rather than private open space and add a new section to require the provision of interior and whon buildings in which there are 20 or more micro units. common rooms and meeting or game rooms or dining rooms would satisfy that requirement. the department is recommending disapproval of the proposed ordinance primarily because the limit and cap on the production of unit units would only apply to that housing. this is about that and rather than who is living in the units. as i mentioned the cap doesn't apply to affordable housing or student housing projects. the proposed amendment to the building code to reduce the size of efficiency dwelling units was reviewed by
3:49 am
this commission at june, 2012 hearing and this commission express the support for the amendment while encouraging provisions for specific quality of life issues including the interior common space as well as generous ceiling heights and one request the by this commission is that micro units be allowed only in new construction to prevent the subdivision of current units and that change has been incorporate the into the change for the board of supervisors to amend the building code . the department agrees with the commission's comments at that june hearing and the goal is to encourage production of a range of housing and addressing the deficit of low and very low and moderate income units. small efficiency dwelling units units are not a
3:50 am
panacea for the shortage of housing but offered at market rate will satisfy the demand for moderate housing and generate funds for affordable housing through inclusionary fees. i would like to outline recommendations if the proposed ordinance is approved by the board of supervisors. this is to facilitate the open and common space requirements and satisfy the planning code so first the recommendation is that the proposed new planning code sek 318 to define efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage be removed and that a new residential use category not be introduced into the planning code. rather we recommend that there simply be a reference to the existing and amending building code definition. second we
3:51 am
recommend that the new interior common space requirement be a minimum rather than a maximum as proposed. specifically the department recommends a requirement of 10 square feet per unit regardless of the -- the total number of efficiency dwelling units included in a proposed project and allows for maximum common space required and finally we recommend that the new requirement for common space be relocated to planning code section 140 and just for the sake of consistency and that concludes my presentation but of course i am available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. at this time we can open it up for public comment? do we have any speaker cards? >> i don't. >> okay. for those that would like to speak you can line up on the screen side of the room and approach the podium.
3:52 am
>> would anyone like to speak to this item? please state your name for the record. >> good an of. i am angela and i am with tom cat and sorry we were rushing here and a lot of families had to pick up the children before coming here. as you know it's tile to pick up the kids. we are here today to encourage the commissioners to please support the 375 cap units. just a little brief background on that is for the past few months community groups and supervisor scott wiener along with supervisor david chiu has been talking and negotiating and the micro units and efficiency dwelling units is what the city really needs. we
3:53 am
understand there is a lot of single people in san francisco but we still have a lot of questions in regards to that. what is their income bracket? if this is the kind of housing that they really need? those things haven't been conducted with the public, so therefore we feel having a cap on this legislation will provide first assessing if this is the type the housing the public really wants to have, two making sure that we have land for real affordable housing units for families. we must not forget families are leaving san francisco because the rent is so high for them. they need support from your leadership as commissioners. you look at all of our neighborhoods, the land available for affordable housing. that's why the whole city made sure prop c which is
3:54 am
allocated for affordable housing passed to ensure that we do have affordable housing for the different sectors, for the different needs in the community, so we hope that you would support this 375 unit cap for this legislation and let's really have more better dialogue in terms of what kind of housing we need for san francisco. assuming that singles want to live my themselves is an assumption. we need to have real dialogue with them before we actually come up with ideas like this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> and i am here for to you
3:55 am
support this cap and there will be nothing left for the families and i am here to ask to you please support this. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello i am andrew and with the coalition on homelessness. i want to encourage you to limit the amount of the high efficiency small square footage dwellings anyway that you can. this is a relatively low population city so this dwelling seems like a gift to developers rather than with plans to help anybody so the market rate for the dwellings are still unaffordable and when they are called low cost equalings it's low cost to construct rather
3:56 am
than low cost to live in and you have 40,000 families in san francisco waiting for affordable housing on a waiting list, and -- >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is raymond castillo and the lead person and chairperson to advance the youth and i wanted to let you know most of the our members is pretty much student, city college, san francisco state university, and we work a lot of youth at soma and other areas and just to give you background you're building a lot of things with schools and going to college. they're dealing with tuition cuts and money for books and all of
3:57 am
this, and having this efficiency dwelling units -- i mean i want to speak my mind and 1300 to 1600 a month is not affordable for students alone and they're dealing with this at the same time. as families we want to keep the students with us. i don't want to be separated from them so please focus on building more affordable housing here in san francisco and afford this cap on the legislation. thank you so much for your time. have a good one. >> good evening everyone. i am linda jimenez. i am with -- [inaudible] this is in regard to the 375 units that you guys are building and what i am requesting for some of the
3:58 am
people -- not to add more units on this one. now i livehere and can't do this anymore. i have two grandkids in college soon
3:59 am
>> [speaking foreign language] >> so i am here today to ask you guys for your support for the 375 cap on this legislation because as she said that as a low income family she says she


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on